We are a nation of immigrants with a long history of opposing each new immigrant group. Or we’re a nation of immigrants that largely opposes immigration, historically. Why don’t we do better? Can’t we work on being less hypocritical?

Here are some reasons why I don’t oppose a wave of 10,000 Syrian immigrants seeking refuge:

They’re the people trying to get away from the bad guys, and war.

It’s a small number.

They are seeking legal immigration status.

“Vetting” should not be an issue. Here’s why:

ISIS is already here, quite possibly in larger numbers (based on WAG’s by “experts” who estimate that 1% of the refugees are ISIS members/supporters trying to sneak in, based on what little vetting process we have).

A couple of years ago, ISIS made a huge effort to infiltrate among a huge wave of illegal immigrants supposedly from Central America and mostly comprised of children. That is, I think they have a much better way of sneaking in.

Many European countries have policies that tolerate ISIS and terrorists among their populations. (France, the UK, Belgium and Greece to name a few.) We do not. In fact, Joe Miller, as a Libertarian, is a strong reminder that the pendulum has swung so far the other way. The PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional, and many other laws and ongoing operations are underway that are unprecedented violations of our civil liberties. And we’ve been living with them all because they’re all in place to find and stop terrorists that are already here.

The “experts” say the vetting process is terrible. Why not work on improving it? We have many good immigration programs, like those that import educated people.

They’re already here - in larger numbers.

Why do we hate Syrians so much more than Mexicans? It makes no sense.

This “No Syrians” opinion is entirely based on fear. Fear is the very best tool that corrupt politicians have and use. And inspiring mass fear is the definition of terrorism - it’s a huge victory for ISIS.

We are a Nation of Immigrants, who proactively say “Give us your poor, your sick, your weary….” It is who we are.

Having said all that, I want to say something that will sound terrible - bigoted, and like I’m back-pedaling. But I think I’m right, and if we could acknowledge this truth and do something about it, it would be a huge step in the right direction of improving America. Historically, our immigrants came from northern Europe for a long time, and they formed the foundation of American Culture. (Judeo-Christian ethics, etc.) Then immigrants began to come from Asia and the other Americas more. Of course, we have a few from Africa. Now, I rarely see American Culture, or see it celebrated. I think American Culture is the very best. I love all the good things that have come into American Culture from far away lands! Recognizing man’s inherent right to self-determination and creating a government based on that principle created a place where humans have accomplished unimaginable feats. Now, it’s important to be ashamed of being American: ashamed to have had slavery, ashamed of corporate corruption, ashamed of ignorance of other cultures. Now, America is a crude, un-educated, darker-skinned miss-mash of people with no ambition to be anything but moochers, because they brought their cultures with them, and their cultures are now over-running American Culture of 100 years ago. A hundred years ago, America was a culture of character and integrity. Now it is a culture of personality - like high school, it’s only important to be popular.

So I think we should reform immigration by securing the border first, and then

to allow very, very limited amnesty,

deport all the illegal immigrants (it’s a lot cheaper than keeping them here!), felons first!

make them go to the back of the line through a legal process,

improve existing programs to get the kind of immigrants we want (whether educated, or poor, weary, and willing to work),

improve legal surveillance of the terrorists that are here, and,

perhaps most importantly, enhance and require assimilation into American Culture.

UAA had an intense week of examining policy in the aftermath of recent school shootings:The former campus police chief's presentation on actions to take in the event of an armed aggressor event included several good points for consideration. Ultimately though, the prevailing logic points to removal of the prohibition policy. Even the police know that concealed carry is a reality on campus regardless of policy. Many know that U of A policy and Alaska statute Article 1 section 19 and the implications of section 14 do not really align. Many also know that it would be far more helpful to innocent citizens and the police alike to have trained citizens who are carrying concealed on location of an event because when seconds count, the police are usually only minutes away.I don't know of a single person who'd declare that a firearms prohibition sign posted on a building as notification of policy would repel an armed aggressor. So the policy is of zero value and needs to be removed.

Most of you may know that Lora stood on the floor of the House as the lone republican voting against a bloated budget. She had no companion.

It is not only the recent decrease in oil revenue that Lora addressed, but the indiscriminate manner in which recent legislatures have conducted business as usual, hardly caring about a shrinking budget reserve.

The current budget passed by the House does cut the budget somewhat, but even with their recommended cuts, an additional $3 billion will be withdrawn from the budget reserve in order to cover the difference between spending and revenues. Lora felt the cuts were insignificant regarding our difficult fiscal situation.

Going forward, Lora's brave stand was in opposition to the guidelines presented by the Republican caucus. This caucus does not appreciate detractors as it calls into question the "group think."

Word has it that detractors are disciplined internally by the leadership with all sorts of mechanisms to include, but not limited to, loss of committee assignments, loss of staff, revolving offices, withdrawal of bills sponsored, and a whole host of other disciplinary actions. This may well be the actions Lora faces going forward.

I ask everyone to monitor this situation closely, not only now, but for a very long time to insure her noble actions are covered by "We the People."

We have asked diligently for this type of representation. Now that we have it, we must link up arm to arm and grow this brave woman's strength throughout the Senate, and ask "fiscal patriots" to join her by standing beside her and promote serious financial restraint now. "We the People" know the difference between strawmen and patriots. We ask you to stand with Lora now and elevate her mature fiscal voice. Anything less is less.

Should America further empower the United Nations by ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)? Should we help finance State sponsors of terrorism and compromise our defenses? Alaska's leadership wants to play 'Mother-may-I' with the UN. Ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty means losing American sovereignty while strengthening the despots in the United Nations!Alaska’s most powerful politicians support the Law of the Sea. The reason cited is that ratification of the treaty would give Alaskans ‘a seatatthetable’. Whose table though? And to whom will we be obligated? The answer: to the despots in the UN, many of whom don’t care much for the US and some of whom really hate us. We’ll need the UN’s permission to among other things, explore and drill for oil outside our EEZ (exclusive economic zone) generally in the area beyond 200 miles off shore. And because inland waters ultimately empty into the ocean, the treaty will affect more than just the ‘Sea’. This treaty involves a multi-national bureaucracy within the UN designed to control resource development all over the world. If the treaty is ratified, customary law, agreements, proclamations and bi-lateral treaties would all be replaced with new powers handed to the United Nations. In essence a huge bureaucracy consisting largely of anti-American players funded mostly by American dollars and ultimately designed to poke a stick in the eye of Americans. Here’s a bit of history on the Law of the Sea. In its current form, the Law of the Sea consists of 17 parts, containing 320 articles and 9 annexes, governing ocean space, boundaries, environmental control, marine research, economic and commercial activities, transfer of technology and royalties, and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters.The first two of three conventions on the LOST were held in 1956 and 1960 in Geneva, Switzerland. The third convention was held in New York starting in 1973 and concluding in 1982. The international treaty became enforceable in November, 1994, one year after the sixtieth state, Guyana, ratified the treaty. 162 countries have ratified LOST.Although the US helped construct and already follows most of the treaty's provisions, the Senate has never ratified it. In past administrations, the main obstacles to ratification have been the provisions in Part XI, (articles 133 through 191) which define the 'area' subject to international jurisdiction, and Part VI, (article 82) which describes royalty distribution. During his term, President Reagan sternly objected to its ratification and pointed out the conflict between Globalism and free market principles. If we were to sign on, any disputes would theoretically be resolved at an international tribunal headquartered in Hamburg, Germany or through binding arbitration between us and many of our enemies!LOST is sometimes called the ‘Zombie treaty’ because it keeps surfacing after being killed in the Senate. Treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the President’s signature. The Obama administration has once again revived it and although the Senate still hasn’t actually voted, supporters are apparently just one vote short of the 67 needed for ratification.America’s generosity has always been far superior to that of any other country. We have given untold sums of aid to those in need. But the UN wants us to sign a treaty mandating that Americans give more, potentially sending trillions of dollars to ‘less developed’ countries, some of whom are known state sponsors of terrorism! And it’s not just the UN wanting us to do so! We already finance the UN's operating budget at 22% and its peace-keeping budget at 27%. That's not enough though! Ask Murkowski, Treadwell, Begich and their buddies John Kerry and Mr. Obama!Ratifying the treaty would also greatly degrade America’s defense capability. The security of our allies throughout the world would be compromised. Access to ocean or maritime areas presently used and protected by the US Navy could be lost as sovereignty is lost to the UN. Why then do some high level Naval commanders favor LOST? They are administration appointed! America must not submit to the power of the despots within the United Nations.Any Alaska specific concerns will not be decided favorably for Alaska or the US in general when addressed in a UN managed kangaroo court. Bi-lateral treaties and negotiated agreements with our neighboring countries are all that is needed to manage fisheries, maritime travel, resource exploration and development and to resolve territorial issues. We do not need a 'seatatthe table' of the UN to resolve disputes between Russian and us.What about the pro-ratification argument by some multi-national oil developers? We must realize who the shareholders of multi-national oil companies are. Free market principles quickly dissolve when mixed with Global influence. Oil developers are gambling that the UN bureaucracy known as the ISA, (International Seabed Authority) will allow permitting more easily than does the EPA. A better solution would be to abolish both the EPA and the UN. Oil companies lose profit with every drop of oil spilled and thus have no motivation to develop irresponsibly. They are and would continue to be largely self regulating. However, limited oversight could still be applied where necessary to guard against gross negligence. In any case, development at the expense of our country's sovereignty need not be part of the argument but surely needs to be recognized as such.When you analyze treaties such as the 'Law of the Sea' and the 'small arms treaty' or proposals and policies found in 'Agenda 21′, you find a common thread binding them together: The United Nations' Globalism! Our elected representatives must be ignorant, corrupted by special interests, or they're being manipulated by anti-American globalists from whom they expect to personally gain atthe expense of American sovereignty!Greg StoddardSept 6, 2013

When I heard the catchy title, I thought the movie would be a showcase of all the achievements American prosperity has enabled, including medical breakthroughs like the eradication of polio, malaria, and tuberculosis; a litany of all our Nobel Laureates and Pulitzer prize-winners; singular miracles like Norman Borlaug’s work that made it so easy to feed the world, the PC and satellite communications, and yes, even the atom bomb.

But that’s not what the movie was about. Lefty reviews criticized D’Souza’s use of Hollywood's signature product: using “moving pictures” to bring a narrative to life. “That’s not a documentary!” - “He has no business making movies because he doesn’t even know what a documentary is!” - shriek writers for Salon. And of course reviews in the MSM pounced on the catchy sub-title as evidence that D’Souza is a liar, and therefore every single thing in the movie is a lie.

But the left’s most hypocritical, self-righteous criticism of the film is that D’Souza is a convicted criminal who plead guilty. They don’t even mention that his infraction was violation of campaign finance laws! He gave money to like-minded friends, to contribute to one cause or campaign or another. Every politician, and every campaign manager, are absolute experts at finding loopholes in campaign finance laws. And virtually all of them are likely guilty of breaking those laws, but mostly for amounts of money/speech that are on the order of 10,000 times greater than any activity D’Sousa was ever involved in.

Of course, campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. But it is easy for whoever is in power to prey on the American public’s fear that “money talks”, and it’s not fair for the wealthiest candidate to have such an advantage. Well, money does talk. It costs money to run ads and get your message out all across the country. Nevermind that the very 1st,most important, First Amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids limitations on speech. In fact, the Founders knew that freedom of political speech was the single most important guarantee of a government "by the people". And, to this day, the USA remains the only country in human history where you CANNOT (legally) be punished for saying the wrong thing about your leaders. We take it for granted. Most Americans are so blessed that they are blissfully ignorant of this unique protection. And having no awareness of the value of it, they’ve been led like lambs to the slaughter, to favor campaign finance restrictions. There has been such an erosion of this principle that some of us worry that the right to speak freely is long gone. But nowhere else on Earth can you openly, legally criticize any politician or powerful government officer, and know that you are protected from prosecution. With the hue and cry for campaign finance reform, politicians have most Americans convinced that what D’Souza did was wrong. But all such laws are unconstitutional. And if we return to our founding values, D’Souza and many others will be vindicated.

The question needs to be asked is: What is the appropriate role or function of government? What is the purpose of government? As a society, it is time and beyond that we begin to re-examine our assumptions. Last night was the first budget hearing for the 2013 Municipal budget. And cries of “don’t cut our program” were heard in the Assembly chamber. One of the programs slated to be cut from Health and Human Services is the “Making a Difference Program” or Youth Court. Supporters of the Youth Court filled the Assembly chamber and 13 people testified to the programs benefits, both to those volunteering their time to work on the court and to the offenders tried by the court. They also made the point that while much of their operating cost was raised from sources other than the Municipality, they still needed the seed money. There undoubtedly will be an amendment to preserve the Youth Court’s $205,000 funding in another department, possibly under Legal. There will also be lobbying at the state level for the state to take over the funding since they are reaping the cost savings from the program. Is enforcement of the law a proper function of government? From the Parks & Recreation department, the Boys & Girls Club will lose $350,250 support for their Mountain View Recreation Center after school program and $181,000 from the Northeast Community Center after school program. These programs may continue, but the Boys & Girls Club will need to fund them. No one spoke in their behalf. The Campfire program will lose $30,000 of their grant money, and this brought out the programs supporters. Six people spoke to the needs of the elementary children in Mt View and Fairview in the program that will lose their after school safe place, and be back out on the streets, with the loss of this funding. The Municipal grant is not their sole source of funding, but again obtaining the grant makes fund raising easier in the private sector. Are social programs for disadvantaged youth a proper function of government? Eleven people spoke against the reductions in service and fare increases for People Mover and Anchor Rides. There is a bit of irony in reductions to the People Mover service in as much as the Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive plan demands fewer cars and more bus riders. In fact all of the plans created by the government lately seek to restrict automobiles and force citizens onto the bus. Is bus service a proper function of government? There are many more reductions in the proposed budget, and another opportunity to testify Tuesday October 30th, after 6 pm at the Assembly Chamber located below the Loussac Library. Both the A and B budgets are available on-line at www.muni.org in the Assembly pages.--Mary Barr

The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) is brought to you by special interest and anti-development advocates, not the least of whom run or support the initiative's creators, the Alaska Sea Party.

Crafty liberals are sneaking a Trojan horse into Alaska claiming Prop 2 will grant more state control over coastal management while keeping the Feds at bay. Ok, but one big problem remains. The anti-development and special interest advocates within our state see almost eye to eye with the Feds!

A very important part of the story here is to describe the ACPB. What's this you ask? Very good! The ACPB is the Alaska Coastal Policy Board consisting of nine Governor-appointed members from the departments of commerce and economic development. Sounds good except when you realize that two of the nine members will be voting for three quarters of the state's population. For those who just went, what? Say again! Said another way, seven of nine members will vote to represent one quarter of the population! So, seems like special interest ripening on the vine doesn't it? The Upper and Lower Cook Inlet regions have the vast majority of citizens represented by the vast minority on the ACPB.

Prop 2 was organized by the Alaska Sea Party because the Legislature failed to prevent sunsetting of the previous Coastal Management program last July. Furthermore, the issue was not to be on the following session's agenda either. Ultimately, management that has worked so well in the past(?) would be resurrected with a bit more emphasis on special interest.

Below are some links you can use to educate yourself well beyond what I've summarized here. Take note that in almost every case, an advocate for Prop 2 is a Democrat, not that there's anything wrong with that of course. So what does Obamacare and Prop 2 have in common? Don't ask me, you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it.!!

The two most important issues presently before the American people are ''Obamacare'' and the investigation of ''Fast and Furious''. Both issues remain unresolved. I will summarize where we are on both now, and what potential means for resolution exists. 1. Obamacare's 'Constitutionality' hinged largely on the law's individual 'mandate' to purchase health insurance (never mind the other 2,000 + pages). The Supreme Court's recent decision found the mandate legal as a 'TAX'. This 'mandate' defined as a TAX, sets the stage for a future Senate vote under a process called 'reconciliation'. Reconciliation is normally used to facilitate resolution on budgetary items which includes taxation. This means that Obamacare could be defeated with a simple majority vote in the Senate (51 instead of 60 votes).

Questions….what mechanism is required to make sure this gets to the floor for a vote? Because the IRS enforces the ''penalty'' for non-compliance, does this define the mandate as a tax? 2. The ''Fast and Furious'' investigation has barely begun. The House of Representatives voted to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. This authorized US Attorney Ronald Machen to bring the case against Holder before a Grand Jury. Can you guess who US Attorney Machen's boss is? (Holder). Couple this conflict with the President's assertion of executive privilege over the documents subpoenaed, and it's clear to see that we've arrived at exactly nowhere. Congress could have jailed Holder until they received the documents subpoenaed, but that action would have proved fruitless as Obama would have declared executive privilege over them, as he ultimately did. If the case continues, resolution would only be likely in the civil court arena. Holder will be protected by Obama which would include a pardon in the unlikely event that this became an option. Questions….Where is the justice and who speaks for Agent Brian Terry and his family? If there is nothing to hide, why the hiding?

Assemblyman Paul Honeman, who was recently a guest host on KFQD radio’s afternoon talk show, displayed an ignorance that, until Tuesday the 8th of March, was the stupidest damned remark made this year by a state or local government official. Comments such as his are real hoots. But the frightening thing about them is that a significant portion of those who hear them do not perceive them as the hoots they are—damned stupid remarks.

Henceforth, such comments shall be called Hoots, and they shall be documented as Hoots of the Year. However, the government officials who make the stupid damned comments will not be called Hooters; they will simply remain government officials that made stupid damned comments. The distinguished title, Hooters, will be reserved for the audiences that find these stupid damned official comments appealing.

Honeman’s Hoot of the Year comment occurred in response to a non-union electrical contractor who had called in to argue his case against government-enforced funding of union coffers. Honeman insisted that the businessman was “free to choose” to bid on municipal contract opportunities or not, and if the contractor “chose” to submit a bid then the required tribute to the union was simply a cost of doing business with the government, regardless if his work force is organized or not. Honeman repeatedly insisted that the businessman was “free to choose” whether or not to bid on a project. In Honeman’s worldview it appears as though the contractor should thank his lucky stars that he was privileged to be free to bid at all. What if the law said that only union shop contractors can bid?

So, in brief, Mr. Honeman and his ilk are shills for their union brothers who are the beneficiaries of any municipal contract, even if they do not perform any of the work. A contractor who is not operating a business in cooperation with a union is free to bid, providing his bids for municipal contracts also include the required tribute to organized labor, under the auspices of municipal law. Being forced to pay a tribute to his competition for the privilege to bid is nothing less than government-supported extortion, and an obvious example of graft in government.

The contractor does not actually pay the tribute however. It is the tax payer, all of us not employed by the government, who ultimately pays it. Bids that do not include the tribute are rejected, due to non-conformance, by employees of the municipality who evaluate the bids. Consequently, we the tax payers are not getting the best work for the least expense because every conforming bid includes the tribute.

Now that is Freedom at its best. And Honeman is the recipient of the inaugural Hoot of the Year for the stupidest damned comment yet; that contractors are “free to choose” if they want to pay tribute to the unions or not. If they choose to pay it, then they can submit a bid.

Let’s go over it again, just to make sure everything is clear.

A contactor is free to bid, but his bid must include a stipend for the unions that just happen to also be his competitors. The unions are thus rewarded for their support of the elected officials who write laws that reward the unions for their support. In turn, the elected officials enjoy the continued support of organized labor for the next election cycle, enabling the extortion and graft to continue unabated.

Over and over again elected officials are thus in the position to do the public sector unions’ bidding, disguised as representatives of the people; the people who pay the salaries and benefits and provide excellent working conditions that are negotiated between the unions and the government officials that union dues and union “boots on the ground” helped get elected. Consequently, public sector labor agreements are lucrative in comparison to the salaries, benefits and working conditions enjoyed by the people who comprise the private sector; the people who bear the burden of paying the costs of those lucrative public sector labor agreements, and who naively believe that their elected officials are serving them.

Mr. Honeman. You have a perverse concept of freedom. Your response to the contractor is nonsensical, as well as ethically challenged and morally reprehensible.

The Anchorage municipal election on the 5th of April is our opportunity to begin electing individuals who will terminate the extortion and graft that permeates the assembly and school board. Honeman is safe for a couple more years, but three of his comrades are defending their seats. A vote for any one of these incumbents, affectionately known as members of “the socialist six,” will affirm once again that the perverse and ethically challenged concept of freedom demonstrated by Mr. Honeman, is in fact the norm.

And the Hooters will be a Hootin’ for another year, contractors will continue paying tributes and the public sector will continue to reap the benefits of occupying both seats at the collective bargaining table.

This “norm” however, is easily reversible.

The fact is that the “norm” is determined by a mere one-fifth of those of us who are eligible to vote. Why? Because conservatives and moderates do not vote in municipal elections, even though they comprise more than half of the eligible voters. By failing to vote (thus, by default), the moderate and conservative members of the municipality enable the Hooters to Hoot-on, year after year.

For some reason, conservative and moderate voters are CONTENT to allow a majority of a minority to determine who shall represent “everyone” in the community. Unfortunately, those individuals who are elected often do not represent the majority of the population—they too often represent the majority of the minority that went to the polls and cast their votes.

When it comes to elections, it is really easy to Get What You Don’t Vote For. It is not all that much harder though, to actually Get What You Do Vote For.

It’s high time that conservatives and moderates begin to demonstrate some DISCONTENT, become more engaged and cast a vote on April 5th to Get What You Do Vote For, rather than What You Don’t Vote For. It’s high time that conservatives and moderates demonstrate some DISCONTENT by studying the candidates and determining who among them has some common sense, morals, and who will challenge the ethics of their peers. It is high time that conservatives and moderates demonstrate some DISCONTENT by electing some assemblymen/women and school board members who will represent their interests, and begin to create a “new norm” to replace the “norm” that has had a grip on the community for the better part of a decade.

P.S. Sen. Ron Wagoner (R, Kenai) is up for a Hoot of the Year. The daily news quotes him, regarding the governor’s oil tax legislation on Mar. 8th, saying that, “a bill that gives away $2 billion to the companies with no guarantees at all of how that money will be spent or what work would be done with that money in the state of Alaska, how many Alaskans will be hired, I have a hard time supporting the bill."

Mayor Sullivan supports Taxpayer Protection Act, encourages Assembly to place issue on the April ballot

"I recently announced my support for the Taxpayer Protection Act, a proposal introduced by Assembly member Chris Birch that would amend the City Charter to clarify how the tax cap is calculated.

The tax cap was designed to protect taxpayers from potentially dramatic swings in taxation from year to year. The Taxpayer Protection Act ensures that the tax cap's original intent is maintained and citizens are protected from a government always looking for "more." I strongly urge Assembly members to allow this critically important issue to be decided by the voters who are at government's mercy when it comes to property taxes.

The tax cap was intended to limit how much property taxes could increase from one year to the next by using a "base" to calculate the next year tax cap. For 23 years the "base" was the amount of property taxes collected the prior year, which protected taxpayers against a dramatic upswing in taxes the next year.

In 2006, the previous administration changed how the tax cap was calculated by using a higher number for the base-the amount of property taxes that could have been collected instead of the amount actually collected. Using this higher number guaranteed a higher tax cap and exposed taxpayers to the potential of dramatic increases in property taxes, which was contrary to the tax cap's intent.

The Taxpayer Protection Act clearly states that the amount of taxes collected is the base for calculating the tax cap. This means that when the amount of property taxes to be collected is less than what is allowed under the tax cap, the lower amount is used as the base.

The record:

From 1983 to 2005, the lower amount was used as the base.

From 2006 - 2009, the higher amount that "could have been collected" was used as the base. During these years the tax cap was artificially inflated by $76 million.

Now the lower amount is used to calculate the tax cap.

The ordinance must be approved by the Assembly in order to appear on the April ballot. A vote is scheduled for the Feb. 1, 2011 Assembly meeting. You can contact your Assembly members and let them know your opinion on the issue."